Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Applicants for the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment.

Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving the funds for three years.

"While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Scott said. "This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars."

If welfare candidates pass the drug screening, they'll be reimbursed for the test.

The legislation instantly came under a barrage of criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union and several of the Sunshine State's Democrats. They argued the bill is an invasion of privacy.

"The wasteful program created by this law subjects Floridians who are impacted by the economic downturn, as well as their families, to a humiliating search of their urine and body fluids without cause or even suspicion of drug abuse," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.

"Searching the bodily fluids of those in need of assistance is a scientifically, fiscally, and constitutionally unsound policy. Today, that unsound policy is Florida law."

The law, which will be enacted July 1, is likely to be challenged. A similar bill was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in Michigan in 2003.

Seroconverted: Early 80sTested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. Last regimen: Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky )Past regimensFun stuff (in the past): HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

He's also requiring all state employees be tested -He is a one-termer - a real asshole...Rumor has it that he owns a substantial portion of a drug testing company/lab that has been contracted to provide services related to the tests - don't know how true it is, but it wouldn't surprise me.He actually was recently voted the most disliked governor in the United States. His term can't come to an end quick enough --- too bad he just took office in January.

Seroconverted: Early 80sTested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. Last regimen: Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky )Past regimensFun stuff (in the past): HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

This is about the only thing I agree with that Rick Scott has touched with his dirty little paws. I live in a low income neighborhood. It grates my nerves when I see people buying alcohol and crack pipes with their EBT card(i think that's what it's called) at the corner store.

Speaking of Scott. How did ya'll like that 625+ million dollar budget cut he made earlier this week? Here in Central Florida we have centers for youth offenders that are already closing their doors. I have a lot of friends that work for the local Prison who are having to look for jobs in a already non-existant job market. My 19 year old works for nursing home and said they're receiving calls from the local mental institutions trying to place patients in anticipation of their own doors closing.

It grates my nerves when I see people buying alcohol and crack pipes with their EBT card(i think that's what it's called) at the corner store.

you need to call and report this store. EBT card purchases are only for food items. While soda is included, prepared foods (like from the deli) are not and neither is alcohol, or pet food and no cleaning supplies or toiletries. You do not need to report individuals for misuse of this card; but you should report the store that is allowing an illegal transaction.

personally, I have been reporting locations for illegal transactions since the days when "food stamps" came in booklets that look like "monopoly money". Often food stamp benefits are given to households with children; but the drug/alcohol addicted parent (who usually receives no help to overcome their addiction) will "trade" these benefits for drugs/alcohol. By reporting the stores that make these illegal transfers you could very well be saving some child from starvation.

This is about the only thing I agree with that Rick Scott has touched with his dirty little paws. I live in a low income neighborhood. It grates my nerves when I see people buying alcohol and crack pipes with their EBT card(i think that's what it's called) at the corner store.

If desperate people are denied aid because they are addicted then it would be my guess all hell is going to break loose in these areas you speak of once this law takes effect . Its my view that treatment not punishment is the ansewer to addiction , neither one will help those that do not wish to be helped .

you need to call and report this store. EBT card purchases are only for food items. While soda is included, prepared foods (like from the deli) are not and neither is alcohol, or pet food and no cleaning supplies or toiletries. You do not need to report individuals for misuse of this card; but you should report the store that is allowing an illegal transaction.

If desperate people are denied aid because they are addicted then it would be my guess all hell is going to break loose in these areas you speak of once this law takes effect . Its my view that treatment not punishment is the ansewer to addiction , neither one will help those that do not wish to be helped .

It depends on how you look at it. Perhaps part of the reason they are not working is due to drug addiction. It's not the state's responsibility to enable this.

that's good to hear. but don't give up hope that nothing is being done if you don't think anything is happening about your report.

Around 1996 where I lived in Ohio, 3 brothers who were running small neighborhood markets, and were allowing all sort of items to be bought with foodstamps (including liquor and according to some marijuana in the backroom) and would even trade cash for stamps - $3 for each $5 foodstamp - were all busted, sentenced and put in jail. I and others had been reporting those establishments for a couple of years. It took time while the local police, state police, feds, FBI, etc put together a sting, gathered evidence and eventually took them down.

you'll need to keep filing reports and getting other friends to do so when they see these illegal incidents occur. These sorts of issues (like using EBT benefits to purchase non-food items) are more a moral crime on the merchant's end than the poverty-ridden, drug-addicted citizens whose terrible situation is preyed upon. And these sorts of legal crimes continue to happen only when enough "good people" do not speak up to inform authorities that the crime is happening.

having myself used foodstamp benefits for a long time now, my empirical evidence is that these kinds of crimes are not that widespread though. Forcing innocent citizens to go through drug testing on the premise that this is some large (as in the amount of people and the amount of money) problem is just a waste of time and money when the problem can be stopped at the source (the merchants that commit these crimes). Instead of drug-testing, perhaps more law enforcement is needed to resolve these issues; but of course many state governments would rather solve issues on the backs of the poor than investing into long-term cost-saving solutions.

Not sure of what the cost is going to be to implement.However, a couple of other notes on it:1) it will only impact those persons on public assistance receiving cash benefits - having worked for the state in the Economic Self-Sufficiency office, this only about 40,000 individuals. Cash benefits are rarely given out these days, are pretty restrictive, time limited, and only amount to a couple hundred dollars a month.2) If the person on cash benefits tests positive, but has children, the children can still receive the benefits, but the money has to go to another adult (perhaps, the drug dealer?)3) Most of the $600 million that Scott veteod was for what are called "turkeys" - these are hometown projects that legislators put in to appeal to their local constituents. (Similar to pork-barrel spending at the federal level). While some of the projects are worthwhile - there are many that really are unnecessary. They are supposed to have a statewide impact, but few do. The college I work for took a $10 million hit to a construction project that was supposed to add a new building to a campus desperately in need of it - which would have served additional students (we are a state supported community colllege).4) Scott also turned down over $2 billion in federal funding which would have funded high-speed rail.5) He is also privatizing the prison system6) He is also putting in a plan to force all Medicaid recipients into managed care organizations - this is being done even after a pilot program that did the same thing in Broward County and Duval County Florida showed miserable outcomes.

The real concern I have, regarding programs like these, is exactly how long will it take, until everyone is tested for something to receive government assistance? Maybe they could drug test the millions of unemployed people and if you are not drug free, then no unemployment benefits for you. Or maybe ADAP? We'll be happy to give you your ARVs as soon as you piss in this cup.

The real concern I have, regarding programs like these, is exactly how long will it take, until everyone is tested for something to receive government assistance? Maybe they could drug test the millions of unemployed people and if you are not drug free, then no unemployment benefits for you. Or maybe ADAP? We'll be happy to give you your ARVs as soon as you piss in this cup.

Exactly my thoughts Joe -Although, I have a feeling, it is more political tea party grandstanding - as the ACLU is fighting it and I don't know if it will actually get implemented - I would think that an injunction will be issued while the case being brought by the ACLU makes its way through the court system. But, in the meantime, Scott will be able to say that he tried to follow the tea party agenda. The amazing thing is that they call for less government interference - but this screams of the ultimate in government interference and "big brother" is watching mentality.

About 80% of employers drug test in Florida; why shouldn't those seeking public assistance be held to the same standard as the general public? In my opinion, many of those who seek public assistance (foodstamps/cash aid) are not doing drugs but indeed feeding themselves and buying necessities.

While I agree with the intent behind Scott's proposal (people shouldnt be spending their assistance on drugs), Under the law I believe it is uncosntitutional based on unreasonable search and seizure.

I believe it's been held that the 4th Amendment prohibits widespread "blanket" testing.

I undestand the idea that these people are recieving something from the government and thus should be "required" to do certain things such as submit to drug testing. But If this passes, what's next? Drug testing the people of Joplin before they receive Emergency Disaster assistance?

That was beyond bad. It was cold and insensitive and I have some friends who live near Joplin and they lost almost everything. To joke about those who lost their lives is beyond the pale.

Well Joe, I could really care less if you thought I was cold and insensitive. After speaking to you years ago it just so happens I came to the same conclusion about you. Surprised you didn't plagiarize an obit or two for added effect.

About 80% of employers drug test in Florida; why shouldn't those seeking public assistance be held to the same standard as the general public? In my opinion, many of those who seek public assistance (foodstamps/cash aid) are not doing drugs but indeed feeding themselves and buying necessities.

Actually, Drug Free Workplace laws are pretty clear - most employers can only test as a) part of pre-employment; b) if there is a reasonable suspicion someone is using drugs; and c) if a person is in a job that impacts directly on public health or safety (i.e. bus drivers, pilots, police officers). Random drug testing, for no other reason than to drug test has been found by most courts to be unconstitutional and a violation of a person's right to privacy. Also, there is the aspect that the nature of testing also can result in a violation of a person's privacy regarding various health problems (i.e. whether a person is diabetic, has kidney disease, takes various medications -- such as Atripla, which can cause false positives for marijuana.

The problem with requiring all public assistance recipients to take a test is that it assumes all are using drugs - which, like you stated, that is not the case. Punishment has never been a deterrent to drug use. Additionally, there are so many ways to beat a drug test - that for the most part, testing would probably not be effective.

But, the real foundation for my argument against this law is that it impedes on the very rights that the constitution was established to protect.

And, personally, I think it is ironic that a governor whose company had a $1 billion payback for Medicare fraud while he was its CEO is now concerned about a "few"dollars that a "few" public assistance recipients may be spending on illegal drugs.

Actually, Drug Free Workplace laws are pretty clear - most employers can only test as a) part of pre-employment; b) if there is a reasonable suspicion someone is using drugs; and c) if a person is in a job that impacts directly on public health or safety (i.e. bus drivers, pilots, police officers). Random drug testing, for no other reason than to drug test has been found by most courts to be unconstitutional and a violation of a person's right to privacy. Also, there is the aspect that the nature of testing also can result in a violation of a person's privacy regarding various health problems (i.e. whether a person is diabetic, has kidney disease, takes various medications -- such as Atripla, which can cause false positives for marijuana.

Good point, but may I add...

Bus drivers, pilots, and police officers are not the only groups subjected to random drug testing. Any company operating under OSHA standards does this as well. Btw, many of those warehouses and companies doing business internationally around you down there follow these regulations.

And drug testing is not invasive at all in regards to a person's privacy, I've taken plenty to know. If you list your medication as Atripla the testing doctor, by law, should not tell your employer you take Atripla. Also, by listing it, the drug testing will be for certain cannabinoids only found in pot and not in Atripla. In other words, the test becomes more specific.

All a weed smoker needs to pass a drug test without disclosure of THC is to get a script for marinol from their doctor. It worked for me.

Bus drivers, pilots, and police officers are not the only groups subjected to random drug testing. Any company operating under OSHA standards does this as well. Btw, many of those warehouses and companies doing business internationally around you down there follow these regulations.

And drug testing is not invasive at all in regards to a person's privacy, I've taken plenty to know. If you list your medication as Atripla the testing doctor, by law, should not tell your employer you take Atripla. Also, by listing it, the drug testing will be for certain cannabinoids only found in pot and not in Atripla. In other words, the test becomes more specific.

All a weed smoker needs to pass a drug test without disclosure of THC is to get a script for marinol from their doctor. It worked for me.

As someone that uses recreational drugs like you do I just cant understand your hard stance on this . I personally wouldn't want to forego medicaid ( if a law was passed for that ) or other aid because I used something privately . Not all people who use drugs meet the criteria as a drug addict and it seems this law is casting a wide net . This law is what somebody already pointed out , cheap politics and tea party point scoring .

As someone that uses recreational drugs like you do I just cant understand your hard stance on this . I personally wouldn't want to forego medicaid ( if a law was passed for that ) or other aid because I used something privately . Not all people who use drugs meet the criteria as a drug addict and it seems this law is casting a wide net . This law is what somebody already pointed out , cheap politics and tea party point scoring .

What can I say, I'm a man of contradiction, but I also don't expect public assistance while I lite my nightly bed-time joint. I work to afford my vice. If someone is getting public assistance it should be used for what it is intended. To feed your kids as well as cloth them, not on drugs. Sorry if you feel pointed out in all this, but you're taking ownership and that was not my intent.

Depends on how you look at it. I'm passing the random drug test while operating that forklift at high speeds all red eyed and stuff, as opposed to taking foodstamps. Foodstamps, welfare, and the likes are for those who need it. I would never qualify at this point in time; drug test or not.

Sorry if you feel pointed out in all this, but you're taking ownership and that was not my intent.

I am not on medicaid and do not receive assistance nor do I use weed but if I did I would hope for some compassion and understanding if I wanted or needed to light one up or have a drink now and then .

Ah, so you yanked that "80%" statistic from between your butt cheeks amirite? If not then provide a link.

No link necessary my friend. Like I said, c'mon down here and try applying at any one of the companies by Phil. I can't speak for PA, but as for where I live I can. It's probably even higher than that. Hell, even bagboys for Publix get drug tested.

Bus drivers, pilots, and police officers are not the only groups subjected to random drug testing. Any company operating under OSHA standards does this as well. Btw, many of those warehouses and companies doing business internationally around you down there follow these regulations.

And drug testing is not invasive at all in regards to a person's privacy, I've taken plenty to know. If you list your medication as Atripla the testing doctor, by law, should not tell your employer you take Atripla. Also, by listing it, the drug testing will be for certain cannabinoids only found in pot and not in Atripla. In other words, the test becomes more specific.

All a weed smoker needs to pass a drug test without disclosure of THC is to get a script for marinol from their doctor. It worked for me.

The OSHA standards still have to follow the Drug Free Workplace Act federal law ---- random testing is not allowed except in the instances I noted previously - or if there is a workplace accident that might involve worker's compensation. Believe me, I used to write state policy on this as well as confidentiality policies related to 42CFR2.

Anytime you are disclosing a medical condition or medication taken - whether it be in writing or verbal - the possibility of a breach of privacy exists - thus, this information should only be shared on a need to know basis. Adding mandatory drug testing for public employees and for public assistance recipients and having them have to disclose various medications and/or medical conditions that may impact their test result or show up in a test is just another potential for a breach.

Additionally, if we are going to require those that receive federal assistance or other government assistance to get drug tested - then, let's see, student loans are government assistance, FHA/VA mortgages are federal assistance, Earned Income Tax Credit could be seen as federal assistance, Medicare and or Medicaid and Social Security, while not entirely needs based programs, but rather entitlement programs, would also constitute government assistance - so, how long before we require testing of everyone receiving this type of assistance.

Oh, that's right, that would probably never happen ----- not as long as we can settle for testing others who are disenfranchised, disempowered, and vulnerable.

Maybe we should just provide Governor Scott the keys to our homes, the account number to our bank, a list of all medications we take and medical conditions.

BTW, this is the same governor who was deeply opposed to a prescription database that would stop people from doctor shopping for opiods, because he felt it would be an invasion of privacy. Me thinks he may have been worried about his fellow Republican, tea partier Rush Limbaugh being unable to get his pain scripts......

Depends on how you look at it. I'm passing the random drug test while operating that forklift at high speeds all red eyed and stuff, as opposed to taking foodstamps. Foodstamps, welfare, and the likes are for those who need it. I would never qualify at this point in time; drug test or not.

Hugs

No matter how you parse it the tax payer is on the hook for your drug use whether you receive public assistance or not.

I am not on medicaid and do not receive assistance nor do I use weed but if I did I would hope for some compassion and understanding if I wanted or needed to light one up or have a drink now and then .

Compassion? Really Jeff? Your painting that picture, I never once mentioned anything about those on disability. I'm referring to those who can work, but for reasons beyond their control are not doing so at this time. I think you would be surprised at the number of people who receive foodstamps and welfare who are not disabled.

No link necessary my friend. Like I said, c'mon down here and try applying at any one of the companies by Phil. I can't speak for PA, but as for where I live I can. It's probably even higher than that. Hell, even bagboys for Publix get drug tested.

It might be "80% for jobs aimed at applicants with a high school education" but I doubt this is so for a college degree professional job.

It might be "80% for jobs aimed at applicants with a high school education" but I doubt this is so for a college degree professional job.

Ms. P. I would have to agree with that --- the majority of jobs that I have seen that say we drug test all prospective employees are usually the service-oriented positions (i.e. restaurants, department stores). As far as in the college degreed professional arena, it is primarily the human services agencies that test - and that is mainly because they receive federal, state, or local grant funding, which requires them to have a Drug Free Workplace Policy (DFWP) -

And, the DFWP only allows for testing a) pre-hire; b) suspicion of use; c) position that can impact directly on health/safety of public ----------- I know of two cases where an employer tried to do a random test without meeting the above criteria and was taken to court by the employee and the employer lost and/or settled out of court.

Compassion? Really Jeff? Your painting that picture, I never once mentioned anything about those on disability. I'm referring to those who can work, but for reasons beyond their control are not doing so at this time. I think you would be surprised at the number of people who receive foodstamps and welfare who are not disabled.

Yes compassion really . I have compassion for low income family's who may be cut off assistance because of a law that will probably be found unconstitutional . I'm not attacking you personally its just I disagree with this type legislation and do not understand why people support laws like this that does little in the way of addressing real problems that exist in the system .

I never bought into this whole big brother idea like you guys. And what's with this whole "they may know our medical condition" thing?

If you read up on one of the reasons why drug testing by employers, government, etc. is so heavily fought - in addition to it being a violation of constitutional rights - it is because human blood and/or urine - can also be used to diagnosis/identify medical conditions. Turning either of these products over for the sake of a government mandated drug test risks possible identification of medical conditions (like I said, read up on this and you will see that this is one of the other primary reasons why the ACLU and others fight against these tests being done).

Oh, and Skeebs, it's cool if we agree to disagree on this point I see you a smiley and raise you a smiley and if you post a pick of two giant smilies with spliffs in their mouths I will have to call Gov Scott and have him order a drug test for you

I have compassion for low income family's who may be cut off assistance because of a law that will probably be found unconstitutional .

Fair enough, I'll stand by my stance that if a family is using the meager amount given by the state of Florida to buy any drugs then they should probably be holding down a 9 to 5. I'll go even further to add that if they are using it's probably the reason they're not working. Why should the state foot the bill and/or enable it?

If you read up on one of the reasons why drug testing by employers, government, etc. is so heavily fought - in addition to it being a violation of constitutional rights - it is because human blood and/or urine - can also be used to diagnosis/identify medical conditions. Turning either of these products over for the sake of a government mandated drug test risks possible identification of medical conditions (like I said, read up on this and you will see that this is one of the other primary reasons why the ACLU and others fight against these tests being done).

Oh, and Skeebs, it's cool if we agree to disagree on this point I see you a smiley and raise you a smiley and if you post a pick of two giant smilies with spliffs in their mouths I will have to call Gov Scott and have him order a drug test for you

LOL see the part in bold? Can does not mean they will.... Like I said, part of this disagreement stems from this whole big brother spying on us thing. I blames Keanu Reeves for making you guys buy into this.

I totally agree with testing for drug usage in order to benefit from public money in any fashion, but I would think it's cost prohibitive. Essentially how much money will you spend determining who's using and who isn't and how much would that save the program. If it's just a moral dilemma then really who cares?

This could be used to help treat addicted persons, but I doubt it would be.

As for the being given the option of ADAP for a drug-free piss test just show me the cup and I'll be on my way. You can bet your ass that would be some motivation. Show me the bar and tell me how high and my ass would be doing olympic level high jump. No drugs? Sure. No Booze? Fine. No Carbs? OK you sadist. Now please give me my lifesaving medication.

I don't think offering public assistance with the only string attached being that you be able to pass a piss test is unreasonable, but I don't particularly feel strongly that it should be in place.

I totally agree with testing for drug usage in order to benefit from public money in any fashion, but I would think it's cost prohibitive. Essentially how much money will you spend determining who's using and who isn't and how much would that save the program. If it's just a moral dilemma then really who cares?

This could be used to help treat addicted persons, but I doubt it would be.

As for the being given the option of ADAP for a drug-free piss test just show me the cup and I'll be on my way. You can bet your ass that would be some motivation. Show me the bar and tell me how high and my ass would be doing olympic level high jump. No drugs? Sure. No Booze? Fine. No Carbs? OK you sadist. Now please give me my lifesaving medication.

I don't think offering public assistance with the only string attached being that you be able to pass a piss test is unreasonable, but I don't particularly feel strongly that it should be in place.

This is a pretty slippery slope. It is very difficult to find someone who does not "benefit from public money in any fashion"

Attend a public unversity? -- state taxes support your tuition

Drive? -- you know taxes pay for road building

HIV Drugs? -- who do you think financed the initial research?

Oh -- and I hope you aren't reading this on the Internet ... DARPA and all that (not to mention the cost of Al Gore's salary )

If these offend your sense of privacy and proportion, well that's why we need to preserve and defend our constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.